When i was driving home from work for lunch... sirius nfl radio said that wallace is reportes to end up in Miami. .. 10 mill per year Thats what they are reporting anyways.. take it for what its worth
Early word on Harvin is at least a 1st (25th overall). I wouldn't give up that pick for Harvin and the contract he'll require. Cruz I'd def think about it but hell swing for Fitz if you're going to make a move like that.
BREAKING NEWS: Dolphins' fans still not tempering expectations though free agency hasn't started yet.
I don't think there's any doubt Minnesota is in on Wallace. At the very least this just gave him leverage and most likely will up Miami's offer since they're coming across as very desperate. If you don't want Wallace this gives you hope that Minnesota will now outbid Miami. This trade definitely put a bump in the road of Wallace landing in Miami. He may very well still end up there but it's not the slam dunk it appeared to be a few hours ago
The flip side to that coin is this. The Steelers have very little else besides Antonio Brown. Emmanuel Sanders has scored 5 touchdowns in the last 3 years. He's averaged 8.24 yards per attempt over the last 3 years and that is just below league average. Sanders hasn't even necessarily proven to be an ideal #3 let alone a #2. The Steelers showed by folding up their tents and closing the door on Mike Wallace that they were already stretched to the tippy-top of their valuation target for Mike Wallace at $10.0 million a year. When he rejected that offer there was no more delay game, or anything like that. They closed the door, which to me shows they were already uncomfortable with that offer. The Dolphins are about to pay a guy $12 million a year that a team with much more perfect information and arguably just as hefty a need at the position as the Dolphins, were barely willing to pay $10 million a year for. Are we likely to have more perfect information than them, to where we have the correct valuation of Mike Wallace and they had an incorrect valuation of him? Do we run an offense that is more his style than the offense that he "grew up" in at Pittsburgh? What is the source of our valuing him $12 million a year versus the Steelers being downright morbid about even giving up $10 million per year? What's the source of inefficiency that you're exploiting here? Maybe. Maybe not. I think it's the opposite. With Greg Jennings you can plainly see why the Packers are not interested. They're going to have to re-do Jordy Nelson's contract very soon and when they do he's going to be one of these $10 million per year guys. And lucky for them, they've drafted well. Randall Cobb is superb. And cheap. And meanwhile, so is James Jones, whose contract they're also going to have to consider re-doing pretty soon. They have an embarrassment of riches and it wouldn't make sense to add back Greg Jennings at a free agent price tag. Yet we run the same offense that Greg Jennings has been playing in all this time. We have coaches that know Greg Jennings. So really we've brought up two concerns about free agents: 1) Their team has more perfect information than you do and they're valuing him less than you so you must feel like you know why, 2) There are translation issues switching guys into a new offense with new players and new coaches. With Greg Jennings, you actually have factors that make you feel better on both fronts. What makes you feel good about Mike Wallace on either front?
Giving Alexander a chance is one thing but depending on him is asking for trouble. If you want to bring him in as a complimentary option and hope he stays healthy and gives you more than that, great but it needs to be at a cap friendly deal. If you're going into it depending on him being "the guy" you're playing with fire. His knees are in bad shape. You have to question why the receiver needy Chargers would let him go when they could have tendered him at a higher level and only committed to him for 1 year?
You have to question the last time the Chargers have done anything intelligent other than firing Norv. Nobody expects DX to be "the guy", but he's about as high-end of a compliment as you could have when healthy.
lmao rotoworld stays on our dick: If it was us that made that deal for Harvin you know it'd be "leave it to the suspect decision making of JI to spend a 1st round pick on a player w such lockerroom issues." Trying to hate on Ireland's trade skills then in the next breath talking about how great of an RB Reggie Bush will be for someone in the next breath
"When healthy". I read your first post as Alexander being the next in line after Wallace and Jennings and we wouldn't be signing them to not be "the guy". Alexander can't be counted on with his medical history. If you give him a cap friendly deal and hope for the best i'm all for it.
Yea, as in he's probably the next biggest name out there after those guys are off the market wouldn't you say so? Again, nobody is saying **** about him being "the guy." That's a dumb term anyways imo bc Wallace isn't really that kind of player who does everything either.
Wasn't Spielman responsible for AJ Feeley and Lamar Gordon? Also didn't he get played and spent a 4th rounder to move up 1 spot for Vernon Carey?
That extra $2 million per year seems to me to simply be the free agency markup which is the cost of doing business where a guy has multiple suitors. I see it as basically being the same valuation the Steelers used. As to why they didn't go any higher, I have no idea. They have major cap issues and maybe they just didn't want that much allocated to their receiver core when they are seeking a return to balance under Haley. I just don't see the difference between trying to sign a guy for $10 million per year when you have him under your control and $12 million per year when he is a desirable free agent as that great a difference to where I'm wondering what we're seeing that the steelers didn't. But that's just me.
You implied it when you said he would be the next inline after Wallace and Jennings. Also Wallace may not be that kind of player but he sure as hell is about to be paid like it.
Its not a knock if its the truth. Speilman got more bang for his buck than Ireland did. And Ireland traded away a much better player.
No he didn't. Number one, Marshall is older. Number two Marshall was being moved for the second time. Number three, Harvin wasn't coming off multiple domestic violence issues, and alleged altercation last night. In fact, if you want to get technical the comparison should be what we got Marshall for. In which case, we won hands down.
I think most of us agree that he is more of a 8-9 million dollar WR. Considering what we have at wr today and the other alternatives to addressing it, overpaying for Wallace is the lesser of evils IMO.
All this talk of $10 million vs $12 million is pointless. Like every NFL contract, it all comes down to the guaranteed money. I bet the Steelers were offering little in the way of guaranteed money. I assure you if the numbers were 5/50 with 35 guaranteed, Wallace would have signed. As for Spielman, don't forget the Ogunleye trade. These rotoworld types have short memories.
That is because the NFL is a, "What have you done for me lately?" league. Doesn't matter if Spielman has done poor trades in the past, what matters is if he is doing a good job now.
I don't get why that even matters. If Spielman were regarded as a shrewd trader then that would actually lessen the sting of it. It's the fact that Spielman IS the same guy who traded a 2nd for A.J. Feeley, a 3rd for Lamar Gordon, and Adewale Ogunleye for Marty Booker...that makes it sting all the more.
This is where our views on the economics differ. IMO the team would be better off ignoring the need in FA than overpaying for it. From a macroeconomic standpoint, I don't think the FA WR market isn't going to provide any value added.
Right, but how much is this trade an actual reflection of Spielman's ability? You can credit him with the timing of putting Harvin on the market, or the decision to trade him, but I'm not sure how much affect he had in setting the market for Harvin.
I think Percy Harvin set the market for Percy Harvin. He and his agent came out and said he wanted a trade, making it public. Every team in the NFL knew, and the Vikings, with no leverage, absolutely had to pull the trigger or risk losing Harvin to FA next year, or maybe he gets hurt.... But he had to be traded. If Marshall did the same thing and demanded a trade out of here, I'm confident we get more than what we did.
I'm not sure how demanding a trade would have caused us to get more in a Marshall trade. That would cost Miami leverage. How does that lead to more draft picks?
It increases exposure, competition, and price. Do you think Jeff Ireland called 31 teams before the Marshall trade? If so, then fair enough, but I have my doubts. It's not like Harvin or Marshall are bad players; they're stars. Their price isn't going to be driven down by a trade demand (as it would be if say, Michael Egnew requested a trade....teams would wait a couple of weeks ). When it's public, there's a greater chance for a bidding war. JMO.
I'm sure it was well-known that Marshall was being shopped. Theres no reason for them to keep it a secret.
Then it's a good thing this is football and not economics. a) I understand what you're saying, but at the same time, ignoring the position won't turn us into contenders. The team's offensive talent level needs to be improved ASAP b/c being average or below average will not get us anywhere. If that means dishing out one big contract to a WR then so be it. It's not like we're spending big bucks on WR-QB-RB as it is. Perspective. Even with Wallace we'd be spending as much on Tannehill, Wallace, Hartline, Matthews, Lamar Miller, Charles Clay, and a rookie WR as Baltimore just dished out for Joe Flacco. b) WADR, for someone who frequently mentions the economic value of draft picks you seem to ignore this factor when it comes to Wallace. The fact is we'll have two additional, inexpensive, 2nd & 3rd round players helping offset Wallace's contract. c) The only way the economics matters is if our GM doesn't draft well the next 4 years; however, if he doesn't draft well then we'll remain average to below average and Wallace's contract won't matter regardless. If we do draft well then the reduced rookie salaries will offset Wallace's contract and allow us the flexibility of not having to re-sign expensive future FAs.
Also, from an economist, value is meaningless. Utility is where it's at. If MB > MC, we sign him. Of course, if MB > MC, it's not overpaying now, is it?
This isn't the first time Percy Harvin has come out and said he wants to be traded. This has become an annual event for him. The Vikings could have traded him last year but chose not to as they didn't get the right offers. They stuck to their guns and exacted a high price for him. Miami felt more urgent about their need to get rid of Brandon Marshall. For whatever reason.
Economics matters in almost every aspect of our existence. The salary cap makes economics a main component of the game. Ignoring the position on its own won't turn anyone into a contender. Ignoring the position and allocating those resources to other positions that provide value-added could very well provide an easier path to improving the team overall.
I don't really agree with that. I find it hard to believe that Jeff Ireland called one team. There is zero advantage for Ireland to keep it quiet.